Select Committee on Home Affairs Sixth Report



8  Prosecution and the courts

"I found the entire process through the courts, both criminal and civil, weighted heavily on the side of the abuser"

-eConsultation respondent

In this section we consider the response of the Crown Prosecution Service, and Courts system to domestic violence. We also consider the experience of the victim in the court process and barriers to successful prosecutions.

Convictions for domestic violence are low

265. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) stated that it sets targets for reducing unsuccessful prosecutions for domestic violence as part of its target for hate crimes:

A target of 28% unsuccessful prosecutions for hate crimes has been set for April 2008, with a sub-target for domestic violence of 30%.[267]

The CPS provided the Committee with a summary of successful prosecutions for domestic violence:

Table 5: Successful prosecutions for domestic violence 2004-08

Timeframe

DV Numbers

% successful

% unsuccessful

Discontinued

Bindovers

Q1 2007-8

14,966

67.2%

32.8%

26.3%

7.1%

2006-7

57,361

65.2%

34.8%

27.9%

9.6%

2005-6

49,782

59.7%

40.3%

33.0%

14.9%

2004-5

34,839

55.0%

45.0%

37.0%

18.2%

The figure for successful prosecutions has risen from 46% in 2003 to 67% overall (of charges resulting in convictions), and 70% in some areas with specialist domestic violence courts.[268]

266. However, the increase in successful prosecutions represents only an increase in the percentage of charges resulting in convictions. Without linking this to data on incidence, arrests, charges or cautions, which are an integral part of the picture, the increase in successful prosecutions does not tell us much about the criminal justice response to domestic violence.

267. Although there is no national figure, in areas in which the attrition process has been tracked, the overall conviction rate for domestic violence—the percentage of incidents reported to police which result in a conviction—is extremely low, at around 5%.[269] This is comparable to the conviction rate for rape, in areas which have been tracked, which is 5.7%. The reasons for such low prosecution and conviction rates are multiple, but the difficulty of cataloguing sufficient evidence of abuse to mount a prosecution plays a significant role, as do a high rate of retraction of statements by victims, and further attrition once cases reach the courts.

268. Although some progress has been made by the Crown Prosecution Service over the last few years in increasing conviction rates for domestic violence offences, it is sobering to note that, in areas in which the attrition process has been tracked, the conviction rate for domestic violence, at around 5%, is even lower than that for rape, which is 5.7%. Without linking CPS data on successful prosecutions to data on incidence, arrest, charge and caution, the increase in successful prosecutions tells us little about the criminal justice response to domestic violence.

Measures have been introduced to increase successful prosecutions

269. The Government and the Crown Prosecution Service have introduced a number of initiatives aimed at increasing the number of successful prosecutions, including pursuing prosecutions despite victim retractions, use of measures to support vulnerable witnesses, and use of Specialist Domestic Violence Courts (SDVCs).

Victim retractions and use of other evidence

270. A 'snapshot' of domestic violence case statistics recorded by the Crown Prosecution Service in December 2006 showed that the proportion of victims who retracted their statement had fallen from 37% in 2002 to 28% in 2006.[270] In 2006, of those victims retracting their statement, 30% did so before plea (39% in 2005), and 63% before trial (53% in 2005).[271] Despite this reduction, the discontinuance rate for domestic violence cases remains high, compared with a rate of 10.8% for all cases handled by the CPS.[272] Jude Watson, Domestic Violence Implementation Manager for the CPS, told us, "very often the victim, usually a female, will withdraw the allegation".[273]

271. The CPS has acted to counterbalance this, in particular by prosecuting cases despite retraction by the victim, where there is sufficient evidence to do so. The CPS told us that, out of 868 cases in 2006 in which the victim retracted, it decided to continue with the prosecution of 421 cases (49%) after retraction. This compared with 341 (36%) of cases in 2005, 321 (40%) in 2004, 27% in 2003 and 19% in 2002.[274] Ms Watson described a range of other evidence being employed by the CPS to prosecute cases: "we are pursuing a combination of other evidence—999 tapes, photographs, evidence from other people who may have witnessed the violence—and encouragement of the victim".[275]

272. The CPS introduced enhanced electronic monitoring in April 2007 to gather information on victim retractions and analyse what happens to a case after a victim retracts. The flagging will also, for the first time, identify "honour"-based violence cases. The first set of data is expected in summer 2008.[276]

Supporting vulnerable and intimidated witnesses

273. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) told us that it had put in place measures to support vulnerable victims and witnesses in criminal courts. It had adopted minimum service standards for victims, which include keeping victims informed about the progress of their case, and consulting with victims, where possible, on bind-overs and bail conditions.[277] Multi-agency Witness Care Units (WCUs) had been established in every CPS Area through the 'No Witness, No Justice' programme. In domestic violence cases, Witness Care Officers (WCOs) ensure that a single point of contact provides tailored support to victims and witnesses from the point of charge through to the finalisation of a case. The WCO provides a range of other support, including referral to specialist domestic violence organisations, identifying vulnerable and intimidated witnesses and arranging for Victim Personal Statements to be taken.[278]

274. Special measures are available under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to victims and witnesses who are deemed vulnerable or to have been intimidated. These include, for example, giving evidence behind a screen. The CPS stated that all prosecutors have received training on the use of these special measures.[279] However, Refuge felt that this did not go far enough, and recommended that all victims should have automatic status as intimidated witnesses:

It is already the case that complainants in sexual offences are automatically eligible for special measures. Yet victims of domestic violence still have to apply for special measures despite the fact that they may well have experienced sexual abuse as part of the many other forms of abuse that they have experienced.[280]

Specialist Domestic Violence Courts

275. The Government announced the establishment of the first Specialist Domestic Violence Courts (SDVCs) in 2005. SDVCs, along with Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs) and Independent Domestic Violence Advisers (IDVAs) form the core of the Home Office response to domestic violence. In April 2007, there were 64 operational SDVCs in CPS areas throughout England and Wales, with funding announced in March 2008 for 30 further courts, bringing the total to 98. The Government intends that specialist courts should enable domestic violence cases to be fast-tracked, and to be heard by specially trained magistrates, with support for victims from specialist staff, including IDVAs. The Home Office states that the SDVC system "situates the court system and the CJS as part of a community-wide response to domestic violence, improving local responses to DV cases and increasing the number of DV offences successfully prosecuted".[281]

276. Magistrates' courts deal with 86% of domestic violence cases, and have a conviction rate of 64%, compared with 76% and 75% in the youth courts and the Crown Court respectively. The CPS told us that the high proportion of cases dealt with in the magistrates' courts and the lower rate of successful outcomes have meant that the SDVC Programme has focused to date on magistrates' courts.[282] Some witnesses have suggested that the focus on magistrate, rather than Crown, courts would suggest that the more serious the charge, the less support the victim is offered.

277. Feedback on the effectiveness of SDVCs has been, on the whole, positive. There is evidence of a significant increase in successful prosecutions where specialist courts are used. For example, in 2005, while 59% of overall domestic violence cases recorded by the CPS led to convictions, this figure rose to 71% of cases tried in specialist courts.[283] One worker for Victim Support was enthusiastic:

The SDVC is brilliant...having everyone in court trained about DV issues is just great- from ushers to Magistrates—to Legal advisors—to CPS... The way the courts work has also sent out a message to the defence teams and perpetrators—there are just no soft options now and the safety of the victim is considered paramount.[284]

A similar view was expressed by a contributor to our eConsultation:

"I'd suggest...extending the Domestic Abuse courts model (seeing a perp [etrator] in court on Monday for an assault on Saturday is a real incentive to press ahead with charges)" - Campaigner

278. A review of the first 23 specialist courts has just been carried out by the CPS. Jude Watson, Implementation Manager for the CPS, told us that 10 of those 23 achieved over 70% successful outcomes[285], and that they had the least number of cases discontinued where no evidence was being offered. In six months of the first courts practising, 6,000 victims were referred to independent domestic violence advisers to provide them with support.[286]

279. There have, however, been a number of criticisms. These tend to be around inadequate time allocated to hearing domestic violence cases in the court. For example, one Women's Aid member told us that:

Due to the sheer volume of cases it is not possible to hear all within the SDVC. Another court/time period should be allocated rather than the current practice to slot cases into any court as time allows. Support services, trained staff etc are not always available at these other times.[287]

280. The CPS identified a number of barriers to rollout of the scheme, including the uncertainty of funding the associated IDVAs and MARACs beyond the current 3-year term, the small number of officials administering the programme at the centre, and the capacity of the National Steering Group.[288]

Linking civil, criminal and family courts

281. Police representatives suggested to us that the attrition rate could be reduced by automatic referral of cases which failed to meet CJS standards to civil law:

There is not presently automatic referral to civil jurisdiction of cases which do not meet the exacting standards of the CJS. We would welcome the design and implementation of an approach which would see the immediate and automatic referral of all material gathered during a criminal investigation of domestic abuse to inform the application for a civil order to protect a victim. 'Immediate' means whilst the perpetrator is still in police custody following arrest but at the point where it is clear that the CPS will not prefer a charge.[289]

282. However, the Crown Prosecution Service considered that there would be practical difficulties associated with automatic referral. Director of the Crown Prosecution Service London West, Nazir Afzal, told us that there would be legal obstacles, for example that victims, not the CPS, own their statements. As such, these statements could not be automatically handed over to a civil lawyer.[290]

Barriers still prevent victims from accessing the courts

283. Victims reported negative experiences of the courts process and other witnesses reported significant barriers faced by victims in accessing the courts.

Many victims cannot afford legal fees for civil courts

284. District Judge Marilyn Mornington told us that victims of domestic violence required legal aid:

The first and growing barrier is legal aid. In the past few weeks I had a finding of fact hearing[291] involving a psychologist and psychiatrist listed for five days. The woman did not have legal aid and serious allegations were raised. How she could be expected to conduct that hearing on her own was almost impossible to believe.[292]

eConsultation respondents described difficulties in accessing legal aid.

"There should also be a way of women getting free legal support. I was told that I would not be entitled to legal aid because of the equity in the family home, which of course I cannot access anyway" - nadine

285. The Rights of Women, a voluntary organisation which offers advice to women on their legal rights, has calculated that the cost of obtaining a civil injunction ranges from a minimum of 300—if the victim represents themselves in court—to well over 3,000—if a solicitor is employed. The exact cost depends on the component parts needed for the injunction.[293]

Child contact cases are being used to perpetuate abuse

286. Overwhelmingly, one of the biggest concerns for respondents to our eConsultation was custody of their children and contact arrangements with the abusive partner. Many told us that their ex-partner had been awarded contact, and that contact arrangements had allowed them to abuse the victim further, and sometimes the children. The following is a brief selection, but we received a huge number of similar complaints on this issue:

"What is the point of spending time, energy, resources to help families of DV to escape their nightmare only to be forced back into it on a weekly basis inside the family courts" - atlantis

  "The family legal system will insist on sending him unprotected to his violence bully of a father. The family courts are still failing our children and something has to be done to protect everyone from DV be them men women or most importantly children" - tidewillturn

  "Almost all men guilty of violence are rewarded with contact to children. Now, I ask you?? What message is that to send out to the abused mother and children?? To the abuser is says...wow...I still have control here!!!!! The judge is allowing me to get away with this and I can persecute her and the children every time at contact" - Lady Portia

There is a growing consensus that child contact should be awarded more carefully

287. In the view of Lord Justice Wall, domestic violence "is a critical issue" in the family justice system. Women's Aid stated that "evidence from court files indicates that nearly 25% of private law contact cases involve allegations of domestic violence".[294] A study by Women's Aid in 2004 found that 29 children in 13 families were killed between 1994 and 2004 as a result of contact arrangements in England and Wales.[295]

288. A 2005 report by the Judicial Statistics Department found that, of 28,641 applications for contact in the Family Courts, only 58 resulted in a non-contact order, and more recent figures show a further decrease.[296] The Family Justice Council told us that there is a fundamental cultural problem where family courts are asked to respond to applications for contact by consent in cases involving a history of domestic violence:

A cultural change is required, with a move away from 'contact is always the appropriate way forward' to 'contact that is safe and positive for the child is always the appropriate way forward'. This will not be an easy task and the FJC believes continued multi-agency training, supported by a public information campaign will be vital to effect change.[297]

289. Most witnesses agreed that there needs to be a move away from a presumption that the violent partner will obtain contact or that supervised contact will automatically lead to unsupervised contact.[298] The Family Justice Council has recently issued a practice direction for the courts along these lines, to be accompanied by very strict guidelines. Opinions expressed through the eConsultation strongly recommended changes to current arrangements:

"Fathers who have been convicted or there is evidence that he has abused his partner should not have any direct contact with his children until the necessary risk factors have been considered" - Jane J

  "It should not be an assumption that a convicted perpetrator should have contact with children at all" - hope through help

  "Court systems fail victims of domestic abuse and they are in need of big improvements when it comes to contact arrangements. They shouldn't view a case of what contact, it should be a case of if contact. The children have far more rights to be protected than a perpetrator of domestic abuse" - louie

290. We were moved by some of the accounts of abuse in child contact cases expressed in our eConsultation. We support the call by the Family Justice Council for a move away from the presumption that the violent partner will obtain contact or unsupervised contact in domestic violence cases. We further recommend that the Ministry of Justice, in partnership with the Family Justice Council, carries out a full investigation to determine the risk posed to children by unsupervised contact.

The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service

291. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) is a non-departmental public body, accountable to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. It represents children within the family courts system with the aim of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. It is independent of the courts, social services, education and health authorities. In 2006/07, it worked with 80,536 children: 12,104 public law and adoption, and 68,432 in private law.[299]

292. A 2005 inspection of CAFCASS by HM Inspectorate of Court Administration (HMICA) was highly critical of the organisation's response to domestic violence. The report highlighted in particular that, for both CAFCASS and the family courts the presumption that contact is always best for children in private law cases is not appropriate where domestic violence is an issue. It identified a need for CAFCASS to provide staff with better structures around risk assessment, and improved training.[300]

293. CAFCASS told us that, in response to the critical 2005 HMICA report, it had:

Made major developments in the way we respond to domestic violence, including: introducing a comprehensive and mandatory training programme; implementing guidance for practitioners in the form of a toolkit; introducing a three-fold approach to risk assessment; establishing procedures for sharing information with children's social care; and establishing protocols with police for more effective screening and risk identification.[301]

HMICA re-examined CAFCASS between January and March 2007. This report found that "inspectors saw evidence of significant amounts of training in dealing with domestic violence".[302] The National Domestic Violence Delivery Plan states that, of the five recommendations for improvement made to CAFCASS by HMICA, "four of them have been 'fully met' and the first has been rated 'partially met'".[303]

294. However, a CAFCASS East Midlands inspection report published in February 2008 was again highly critical. The report, carried out by Ofsted[304] in June and July 2007, concluded that, despite some good practice, there remained serious failings in relation to safeguarding children, inadequate case files and case plans, and that inspectors "could not fully see how managers satisfied themselves that FCAs [Family Court Advisers] were reaching sound conclusions and therefore making the right recommendations to courts about children's lives".[305]

295. Many of the conclusions of both the 2005 HMICA and 2008 Ofsted reports were supported by respondents to our eConsultation, who were fiercely critical of the organisation:

"There was no support whatsoever for myself and children and Cafcass wrote a report weighted in favour of my ex, quoting blatant lies about me without even asking me whether the accusations were true...my son informed Cafcass of the severe violence [against him] and nothing was done, too much work for the officer involved...As a barrister I was disbelieved by Cafcass and indeed the "system" so what chance has a lay person of getting justice?" - anonymous

  "At one point [the] Cafcass officer was actually writing about another person in one of her reports about me. I asked for a change in Cafcass officer and got one with about the same intelligence as the first one. All the professionals involved in the residency case knew about that man's violence, his motive for wanting our daughter, they even had written proof from a psychologist, school statements, police logs from DVU and they made a joint residency order. They actually put her back in the situation I got her out of" - anna

The Family Justice Council noted that, due to under-funding, CAFCASS is unable to carry out critical work: "CAFCASS needs sufficient funding—the resultant under-staffing means that reports are now taking between 14-26 weeks in many areas".[306]

296. We heard a great deal of fierce criticism of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), especially via our eConsultation. Whilst, from evidence supplied by CAFCASS, the organisation appears to be making progress in dealing with domestic violence cases, it is clear that it has a very long way to go yet.

297. If accounts that the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service is taking 14-26 weeks to complete reports in child contact cases are correct, this is unacceptable. The Department for Children, Schools and Families must work with the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service to ensure that it can carry out its essential work.

298. We recommend that Ofsted carry out a follow-up inspection of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) response to domestic violence at a national level within the next year, to assess progress following the critical 2005 and 2008 reports.

Inadequate sentencing

299. Both professionals and survivors told us that inappropriate or lenient sentences, including heavy use of fines, are being handed down in some domestic violence cases. One contributor on our eConsultation said:

"He was released after 6 months in prison [on remand] and sentenced for 2 years Actual Bodily Harm with 2 years suspension. There is no justice for the victims" - female

Refuge asserted that:

Domestic violence has the highest rate of repeat victimization than any other crime. Yet charges are regularly downgraded to common assault and perpetrators of domestic violence commonly receive non-custodial sentences such as bind overs, fines or community orders if convicted.[307]

300. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the amounts handed down for fines are often extremely low. Refuge gave us an example of a case in which a perpetrator of domestic violence, earning in excess of 90,000 per year "received only a 2,000 fine for branding his wife with a hot iron (for failing to press his shirt) and slashing her feet while sleeping (for not preparing his sandwiches for the following day)".[308] An academic study in 2005 showed that the value of fines for domestic violence handed down to perpetrators is consistently far less even than 2,000—fines are most likely to be in the region of 150-300.[309] The study gave the following case example:

Fining perpetrators: a case study

Celia had been married for five years. Her husband gradually became more violent. At first he used the 'odd slap', but then started isolating her from friends and family. She tried to leave three times, but her husband became more violent each time. The police were eventually called. Her husband was arrested for breach of the peace, but she would not press charges and he was released. More violence ensued: broken ribs, nose, an arm, chin split, teeth loose. The police were eventually called again. Celia gave a statement, and her husband was charged with grievous bodily harm with intent. He was placed in a bail hostel and she felt safe, but he was then allowed out to see the children. The court case resulted in conviction: he was fined 100, paid at 5 a week, and ordered to attend a perpetrator programme. She felt none of this had an impact on the offender, as he continued to pester her daily.[310]

301. The courts and CPS do not collect data on the types of penalties handed down in domestic violence cases, except in SDVCs, where the monitoring of types of sentencing is encouraged although not mandatory. The courts and CPS do collect data on successful and unsuccessful outcomes, but not on types of sentence handed down or the amount of any monetary penalties. Some limited data is available on the types of sentence handed down in domestic violence cases in SDVCs, from an evaluation of the first SDVCs in Gwent and Croydon in 2004. The evaluation report[311] found that, out of all the sentences handed down by the SDVC in Croydon over an eight month period, a financial penalty was handed down in 43% of cases.[312] The same report found that, out of all the sentences handed down by the Gwent SDVC in the same period, a financial penalty was handed down in 24% of cases.[313]

302. Sentencing of domestic violence perpetrators seems to be variable, and often to result in a fine or other monetary penalty, frequently for risibly small amounts. There is currently no collection or analysis of data on sentencing by type (except in SDVCs), nor on the amount of fines. The Government urgently needs to collate and evaluate data on the types of sentence being handed down in domestic violence cases, including the amount of any fines and the number of community sentences, and the effectiveness of different sentencing options, both in terms of reducing repeat offending, and in terms of ensuring the safety of the victim.

Some report ignorance from judges and magistrates

303. Respondents to our eConsultation described unsympathetic, and in some cases, ignorant, judges, and stressed the need for those involved in the judicial process to be trained in domestic violence:

"The only negative experience I had was in relation to the judge in my court proceedings. Unfortunately I found him to be judgmental, rude and dismissive and I struggled to maintain my confidence as a result" - Harrison

  "At a conference today...we had been discussing the problems of judges in the higher courts (magistrates are getting better and SDVCs etc) still taking extraordinary decisions and making remarks which betray an ignorance of the nature and dynamics of domestic abuse. The damage done by some judges is greater than the effort required to change their behaviour and knowledge" - tiscali

304. District Judge Marilyn Mornington agreed that there were a large number of untrained lawyers and judges operating in domestic violence cases. District Judge Mornington told us "apart from the CPS which has done an excellent job in training its solicitors at all court levels, there are lawyers who have had no training whatsoever in this work".[314] She urged that this "is a huge gap which can be met without any resource issues for the Government because the lawyers will have to pay for it themselves. Training can be arranged at very modest costs".[315] Women's Aid stated that all magistrates, judiciary and courts staff should be trained in domestic violence cases.[316]

305. In contrast, the CPS told us that it had implemented a comprehensive training programme for its staff:

A three-year domestic violence training programme for all prosecutors and caseworkers commenced April 2005 for completion by March 2008. By August 2007, 2,548 employees had been trained; 62% of the total figure to be trained. The training covers: identification and monitoring of cases; policy implementation and guidance to deliver effective prosecutions; and service provision for victims and witnesses.[317]

306. A number of good initiatives have been introduced by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office to increase the currently low rate of successful prosecutions in domestic violence cases. However, victims told us that key barriers remain for them in pursuing a case through the courts, including lack of legal aid in civil cases, fear of continued abuse through contact with the perpetrator, and ignorance or inadequate sentencing by judges and magistrates.

307. Feedback on Specialist Domestic Violence Courts (SDVCs) was on the whole positive, and the SDVC model seems to have resulted in an increase in successful prosecutions. We recommend that there should be a Specialist Domestic Violence Court in each local authority area, and that sufficient time be allocated in each court to hear domestic violence cases.

308. We recommend that the Crown Prosecution Service and Police service consider introducing automatic status as intimidated witnesses for all victims of domestic and "honour"-based violence and forced marriage, both in the criminal and family courts.

309. We heard accounts of ignorance and misunderstanding amongst some lawyers, judges and magistrates with regard to domestic violence. We recommend that accredited training be developed and made compulsory for all lawyers, magistrates and judges undertaking domestic violence cases, including in child contact cases. Legal practitioners already pay for certain training as part of their licence, and we consider that the Government should include accredited training in domestic and "honour"-based violence and forced marriage as part of this.

 


267   Ev 244. Domestic violence accounts for 80% of all hate crime and the targets for individual hate crimes are 'weighted' to reflect that position. The 30% represents 30% of all charges resulting in conviction. Back

268   Presentation from John Dunworth, Home Office Domestic Violence Unit, to the Committee, 15 January 2008 Back

269   In areas in which the attrition process has been tracked, for example in the Northumbria Police Force area, where, out of a total of 2.402 domestic violence incidents, perpetrators were arrested, charged and convicted in only 120 incidents (5%), Hester and Westmarland, Criminal Justice Matter, (2007) Back

270   Ev 344 (Crown Prosecution Service) Back

271   Ev 347 (Crown Prosecution Service) Back

272   Crown Prosecution Service Annual Report and Resource Accounts, 2006-07 Back

273   Q 17 Back

274   Ev 347 Back

275   Q 17 Back

276   Ev 381 Back

277   Ev 245 Back

278   Ibid. Back

279   Ev 246 Back

280   Ev 338 Back

281   Ev 251 Back

282   Ev 379 Back

283   Ev 231 Back

284   Ev 287 Back

285   Measured as the proportion of charges resulting in conviction Back

286   Q 19 Back

287   Ev 216 Back

288   Ev 380 Back

289   Ev 181 (ACPO Domestic Abuse portfolio) Back

290   Q 146 Back

291   A preliminary hearing held in child contact cases, to establish whether domestic violence has been present in the home Back

292   Q 37 Back

293   Ev 471 (Rights of Women)

 Back

294   Smart, C. et al (2003), Residence and contact dispute in court, University of Leeds, Centre for research on Family, Kinship and Childhood. Back

295   Saunders, H (2004), Twenty-nine child homicides: Lessons still to be learnt on domestic violence and child protection, Bristol: Women's Aid Federation of England Back

296   Ev 309 (Men's Advice Line) Back

297   Ev 259 Back

298   For example, Ev 232 (Fawcett Society) Back

299   Ev 279 (Cafcass) Back

300   Ev 280 (Cafcass) Back

301   Ev 278 (Cafcass) Back

302   HMICA, Children's Guardians and Care Proceedings (2007), p 21 Back

303   National Domestic Violence Delivery Plan, Annual Progress Report 2006/07, Home Office, (March 2007), p 29 Back

304   Ofsted took over monitoring of CAFCASS from HMICA in 2007 Back

305   Ofsted Press Notice: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/portal/site/Internet/menuitem.e11147abaed5f711828a0d8308c08a0c/?vgnextoid=3e28ec29f4918110VgnVCM1000003507640aRCRD  Back

306   Ev 259  Back

307   Ev 336 Back

308   Ibid. Back

309   Hester, M (2006), Social Policy and Society Back

310   Making it through the criminal justice system: Attrition and domestic violence, Social Policy and Society 5: 1, 79-90, Marianne Hester (2005), p 87 Back

311   Evaluation of Domestic violence pilot sites at Gwent and Croydon 2004/05, Interim Report, CPS September 2004, p 24 Back

312   There were 65 defendents available for sentencing in Croydon Back

313   There were 46 defendents available for sentencing in Gwent Back

314   Q 37 Back

315   Ibid. Back

316   Ev 208 Back

317   Ev 243 Back

 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 13 June 2008